# Petitioners Reply Brief — Falkowski v. Perry > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385010_1012%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petitioners Reply Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1983 - **Citation:** 464 U.S. 819 ## Text IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October, 1982 82-1914 No. EVELYN FALKOWSKI, Petitioner Vv. BERTRAM N. PERRY, Respondent and LOWELL W. PERRY, etc. ef al., (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), Respondent REPLY TO OPPOSITION OR WAIVER OF OPPOSITION FROM COUNSEL FOR BERTRAM PERRY IN PERRY V. GOLUB Evelyn Falkowski. Pro se 2501 N. Kenilworth St. Arlington, Virginia 22207 Of Counsel: (703) 534-4270 Owen Perry. Esq. 3000 Town Center Suite 2121 Southfield, Mich. 48075 Edward Owen Falkowski, Esq. P.O. Box 18 Fayetteville, Tenn. 37334 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Where failure of government to hear Or insure initial legal defense to supervisor Sued as an agency official contributed to her Subordinate's prevailing, should resulting final judgment be vacated? 2. Should decisions tainted by unresolved conflicts of interest of counsel be vacated? 3. Do certain representations to Courts | constitute fraud upon the Courts such that these Opinions ought to be vacated? 4. Does appellate nullification without Publication, of falsely Stigmatizing pub- lished decisions, deprive of due process? 5. Where District Court fee decisions find on the merits of untried cases, and record shows bias, should this Court vacate affirmance and order remand for decisions by an impartial tribmal? a (i) TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorieies Questions Presented for Review Opposition or Waiver of Opposition to Petition Reply ii (13) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES BUSH V. LUCAS, No. 81-469 SPOR) keccc cu. HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS co. V. HARTFORD- EMPIRE CO., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) KLAPROTT V. UNITED STATES, 335 U. S. 601 eo ee oe Sa PICKERING V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 391 U. S. 563 (1968) RODGERS V.- UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 508 F. 2q i52, Cert. Denied, 423 U.S. 832 (1975) etd tee we ence al WOOD V. GEORGIA, 370 U. Ss. ore (1961)......6 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE 7, 507-513 (neodseeel 5 REPLY Statement that there is "nothing in the petition for certiorari or Supporting brief addressing our entitlement to attorneys' fees in such case" (Case No. 81-7278, Bertram Perry v. Alvin Golub, et al.) is refuted by the petition itself as follows: REFUTATION IN PETITION The Petition asserts: (1) that the District Court departed from the law of the case in a published decision by assessing fees against EEOC to Bertram Perry as a whistle blower against his super- Visor, Petitioner Falkowski. That the Eleventh Circuit published only "affirmed in Part," without clarifying that the District Court lacked record, trial on the merits, or Jurisdiction on which to base such findings and fees (pp. 2, 3). (2) The petition, p. 4, points out that Bertram Perry received free legal defense from a lawyer renowned (App. A, 68a) and 6 known as a critic of EEOC "fishing expe- ditions" who defends employers charged before the .0ffice where Perry works. (3) The petition, pp. 6,7 urges that the fee opinions violate due process and law pertaining to moot cases. (4) At p. 15 the petition cites fee Opinion (25 EPD 731,488) as "here appealed" (5) At p. 24 it points out the impact of vacated decisions. Heading 10 on that page is “Appeal of Fee Opinions:" P. 26 points out that the published decisions find on the merits of untried issues. (6) The petition at p. 29 points out that "Mr. Gardner's interest was not in his client's loyalty, deserved or not, to his supervisor. Counsel for Perry was discre- diting Petitioner to undermine her credi- bility in other cases where he represented employers against EEOC. For example, pp 30, 31 of the Petition cite Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1981) as support for vacating 7 the Opinions because of conflicts of interest of Counsel which should have been appropriate- iy addressed by the District Court. (8) P.32 mentions existence of evidence that screams against the findings in the fee awards. On that page is raised questions of Fraud upon the Courts which pertain to the fee award to Mr. Gardner; Moore's Federal Practice 7, pps. 507-513 is cited. (9) P.39 urges lack of basis for the sub- Stantial award by the District Court to Bertram Perry's attorney, and contrasts this With lack of credible support for the Court's reiterating, after mootness decisions his 1975 finding "there was a suggestion that Petitio- ner might be slanting cases for the benefit of certain private attorneys who were her personal friends." (10) P. 40 relates that the transcript of hearing on fees shows the Court asked Perry's lawyer to prepare a decision but that request to this lawyer on Petitioner's behalf for 8 any proposed decision was not answered. Page 41 relates to the foregoing, in discussion of Fraud Upon the Court. (11) P. 47 asks that affirmance be vacated and fee decisions be remanded for decisions by an impartial tribunal. (12) P. 51 asks this Court, pursuant to Rule 17 (a) to exercise its power of supervi- sion because of departures from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, and concludes: "At a minimum, she asks this Court to vacate and: (1) remand for fee Opinions by an im- partial tribunal, and (2) cause published clarification that these cases were administratively resolved, and that all questions concerning Petitio- ner's character and competence referred to by the Perry v. Golub Court have been with- drawn by EEOC, and that Bertram Perry voluntarily withdrew two lawsuits against Petitioner." SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION Petitioner asked for the foregoing as a Minimum. Reversal and remand for trial is Justified under Klaprott v. United States, 335 U. S. 601 (1949), Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. Vv. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), and Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp., 508 F. 2d 152, 163, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 832 (1975) which holds that Courts are not exempt from Constitutional strictures. Bertram Perry sought out a powerful law firm and a Title VII defendant lawyer known as a critic of EEOC. He presented a fraudu- lent case, the possibility of which actually became manifest quickly. But "mootness" decisions blocked Falkowski's proof. Praise to Perry as a black man, in the face of grave questions, was sheep's clothing, and also reinforced his improper behavior. 10 Under the standards of Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563 (1968) Bertram Perry could not have prevailed against EEOC. The record shows malicious, false, and ob- Scene remarks by him to and about his super- visor, and not violation of his rights. Further, this Court's decision in Bush v. Lucas, No. 81-469 (June 13, 1983), is reason for reversal of the judgment below. Perry's award for fees through May 3, 1976 was for claims this Court decided should be resolved by the Civil Service Commission. Respectrully submitted, ’ L E cae. wSki, Esq. Pro Se 2501 N. Kenilworth St. Arlington, Virginia 22207 OF COUNSEL: Owen Perry, Esq. 3000 Town Center Edward Owen Falkowski, Esq. Suite 2121 FP. O. Box 18 Southfield, Mich. Fayetteville, Tenn. 37334 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385010_1012%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.